Certainly NIV is a translation. It is my preferred reading format but not my preferred study format. I personally use several versions to study and understand the truth in scripture in lieu of trying to learn the source language the way it was written thousands of years ago. Even knowing this modern versions of the source language isn't enough so I depend on professionals and the multiplicity of versions with guidance from the Holy Spirit to get at the truth. YMMV.

Harry, I won't be stripping the DRM to analyze the text. Besides the legal issues involved, I don't find it necessary since the publisher has acknowledged it.

As for everything else being discussed, I would rather not address it since the thread has been hijacked enough. While everyone's opinions are appreciated, they are not really relevant in this case. The fact is, many people DO treat this text as authoritative. Whether they should or shouldn't do so it quite irrelevant in this thread.

I am glad you agree with the warning, but like cmdahler indicated, I doubt Zondervan will do that. The fact is, their priority as a publisher isn't necessarily always "Biblical" -- they are a business entity and that's their primary focus. It's pretty frustrating IMO too. Sony won't even post my review of the book, which serves as a warning to future buyers. THAT is even MORE frustrating.

Nope. I understand exactly what you're saying, but this is the peril of relying upon a translation for religious study. That's precisely why the Koran can be studied in translation as a text, but for religious use, only the classical Arabic version is permitted to be used. Nobody would dream of using a translated Koran for religious devotion for the very reason you cite - it would be disrespectful to God.

That's all well and good, but can you imagine the response in the Islamic community if an ebook Arabic version of the Koran were published with an error or two in the text, even something you personally would consider a minor font issue? Don't you imagine that the publisher would take a lot of time to ensure such errors didn't exist before making it available? For that matter, can you imagine the initial response to Zondervan if they had made basic formatting errors like this in the print publication of the NIV? It would have forever tarnished their reputation and likely would have meant the NIV would have had a long, uphill struggle to become the widely accepted version that it is.

I understand what you are saying about a truely devotional, authoritative scholarly study of the text of the Bible needing to be done in the original Hebrew and Greek. But amongst the Christian community, as opposed to your example of Islam, using an English translated text has long been acceptable for personal devotional study. Even so, you will not find very many Christians attempting to devotionally study the Bible using a paraphrased version such as "The Living Bible". If an original language study is impractical for the average person, a direct translation as opposed to a paraphrase is clearly the next best thing. I seriously doubt, for example, that every single Muslim in the world is capable of reading Arabic, yet they manage to be devotional and strongly religious just the same.

That's all well and good, but can you imagine the response in the Islamic community if an ebook Arabic version of the Koran were published with an error or two in the text, even something you personally would consider a minor font issue? Don't you imagine that the publisher would take a lot of time to ensure such errors didn't exist before making it available?

Please understand that I am not denigrating your very evident concern over this. What I'm struggling to understand is how, with so very, very many translations of the Bible out there, any given one of them can be regarded as being an authoritative text, since they are all different. Or are they all authoritative? Is this typographical convention for the various forms of the Hebrew name of God something that they all do in the same way? I don't read Hebrew, only Greek, and the matter doesn't arise in Greek because the word for "God" used in both the Septuagint and the New Testament is just "theos", which is an ordinary everyday word, and exactly the same word you'd use if you were talking about one of the "classical" gods.

The situation with the Koran, where there's just one accepted text, is very different. It's either right or it's wrong.

Quote:

I seriously doubt, for example, that every single Muslim in the world is capable of reading Arabic, yet they manage to be devotional and strongly religious just the same.

Mosques all over the world teach children to read the Koran in Arabic, just as the more traditional branches of Judaism teach children to read the Bible in Hebrew, regardless of their everyday spoken language. It's just the way that the thing is done.

Certainly NIV is a translation. It is my preferred reading format but not my preferred study format. I personally use several versions to study and understand the truth in scripture in lieu of trying to learn the source language the way it was written thousands of years ago. Even knowing this modern versions of the source language isn't enough so I depend on professionals and the multiplicity of versions with guidance from the Holy Spirit to get at the truth. YMMV.

Dale

Yup. I actually perfer the internet for studying. With places like NET Bible and Blue Letter Bible or Pocket E-Sword it's pretty easy to compare text between multiple translations and have access to multiple commentaries, concordance and encyclopedias all at once.

Yup. I actually perfer the internet for studying. With places like NET Bible and Blue Letter Bible or Pocket E-Sword it's pretty easy to compare text between multiple translations and have access to multiple commentaries, concordance and encyclopedias all at once.

I wish that Olive Tree would release their superb range of Bible study tools in eBook formats. Using their software is one of the main reasons that I still keep my Pocket PC alive and kicking.

Please understand that I am not denigrating your very evident concern over this. What I'm struggling to understand is how, with so very, very many translations of the Bible out there, any given one of them can be regarded as being an authoritative text, since they are all different. Or are they all authoritative? Is this typographical convention for the various forms of the Hebrew name of God something that they all do in the same way? I don't read Hebrew, only Greek, and the matter doesn't arise in Greek because the word for "God" used in both the Septuagint and the New Testament is just "theos", which is an ordinary everyday word, and exactly the same word you'd use if you were talking about one of the "classical" gods.

Actually the typographical convention for LORD is used in almost all modern translations. It is the expected norm to refer to the different Hebrew words for God.

There are two major methods used in translations: Maintain to the extent possible the exact source language converted into English and Maintain to the extent possible the exact meaning in the target language.

The first results in a stilted and difficult to read translation that doesn't flow but is good for study when you don't know the source language. The word order is rearranged to match the target language. There are even Interlinear versions that translate only the words without rearranging the word order at all. There is still some interpretation used because a single word in the source language can be translated using different words in the target language and sometimes the target language has no such word.

The second results in a better flow but understanding the thought requires more interpretation of the source. However if you were translating a manual that you expected someone to follow to fix an airplane you would certainly want this method of translation. It is certainly much plainer and easier to read.

Are both authoritative? None are inspired and contrary to some beliefs the Bible wasn't originally written in the KJV. Languages change over time and the various versions sometimes reflect this difference in that they themselves reflect the language when they were translated. There are proponents of both translation methods and the idea of paraphrasing to get the meaning has dropped out of favor. Even the New Living Bible has been changed to a translation. If you compare the various versions you will find that they all say almost exactly the same thing once you allow for word changes and style. All the major doctrinal issues are the same in most versions. It is subtle insight that can vary. Every time I read my Bible I get some new insight out of it. There are some versions intentionally translated with a point of view in mind but I am not talking about those.

What I'm struggling to understand is how, with so very, very many translations of the Bible out there, any given one of them can be regarded as being an authoritative text, since they are all different. Or are they all authoritative?

Since Christianity and Judaism has been so world-wide widespread for so long, scholars and linguists have naturally devoted so much time to examining the original language in such detail that differences of opinion over the intent of the original amount to only a few pages out of the entire Bible. Because of this, I think it can be reasonably said that virtually all major versions of the English Bible since the King James are really the same - you read one particular passage out of, say, the NASB, and compare that to the same passage in the NIV, and you will not come away with any different underlying meaning in spite of phrasing differences between the two. So all the major translations of the Bible are authoritative in that they all say the same thing; it really just amounts to picking one or two that you happen to like the best because it reads well to you. Studying different versions side by side is far more about just getting a better understanding of the meaning of a particular verse or paragraph because it might read better in one version than another, not because one version is going to say something in a way that differs in the underlying meaning of the passage.

Quote:

Is this typographical convention for the various forms of the Hebrew name of God something that they all do in the same way?

Yes, it's common amongst almost all English translations of the Bible.

God = the Hebrew word El, which simply means God.
Lord = the Hebrew word Adonai, a more personalized reference to the Hebrew God.
LORD = YHWH, the personal name of God given by God to Moses:

God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.
--Exodus 3:15, NIV

For an example of the furore that can be provoked by changing a word, see "a Bible gone bad is a nuclear attack". I don't agree in any way with the sentiments expressed there, but stuff like '10% voted, "all translations are evil except the King James Version."' is certainly eye-opening.

Not trying to butt in here and don't know if this particular version of NIV is any better but I enjoy reading "The Bible in 90 Days" It's a great program too, really allows things to be linked by reading the entire Bible in such a short time.

Actually the typographical convention for LORD is used in almost all modern translations. It is the expected norm to refer to the different Hebrew words for God.

There are two major methods used in translations: Maintain to the extent possible the exact source language converted into English and Maintain to the extent possible the exact meaning in the target language.

The first results in a stilted and difficult to read translation that doesn't flow but is good for study when you don't know the source language. The word order is rearranged to match the target language. There are even Interlinear versions that translate only the words without rearranging the word order at all. There is still some interpretation used because a single word in the source language can be translated using different words in the target language and sometimes the target language has no such word.

The second results in a better flow but understanding the thought requires more interpretation of the source. However if you were translating a manual that you expected someone to follow to fix an airplane you would certainly want this method of translation. It is certainly much plainer and easier to read.

Are both authoritative? None are inspired and contrary to some beliefs the Bible wasn't originally written in the KJV. Languages change over time and the various versions sometimes reflect this difference in that they themselves reflect the language when they were translated. There are proponents of both translation methods and the idea of paraphrasing to get the meaning has dropped out of favor. Even the New Living Bible has been changed to a translation. If you compare the various versions you will find that they all say almost exactly the same thing once you allow for word changes and style. All the major doctrinal issues are the same in most versions. It is subtle insight that can vary. Every time I read my Bible I get some new insight out of it. There are some versions intentionally translated with a point of view in mind but I am not talking about those.

Dale

Most interesting - thank you, Dale. I had to laugh at your comment about people believing that the KJV was the "original" version of the Bible. Are there really people who are unaware of its origins in Hebrew and Greek (with a smattering of Aramaic)?

Most interesting - thank you, Dale. I had to laugh at your comment about people believing that the KJV was the "original" version of the Bible. Are there really people who are unaware of its origins in Hebrew and Greek (with a smattering of Aramaic)?

There may be a few very simple folk who believe that, but that would be pretty rare. What you'll find more than that are people who believe the KJV is the "inspired" English translation and as such is the only true and right one. For what reasons I don't know - I've never bothered to take the time to find out. The only thing I'll say is that just like comparing some passages from, say, the standard Victorian-English translation of The Count of Monte Cristo with a more updated modern English translation, the modern language may be easier to understand at first reading, but a lot of the poetic prose that flows so beautifully in that antiquated English is lost. For the most part, the NIV is just about the most readable modern English translation available; but there are some passages in the KJV that just can't be beat simply for the beauty of the way they sound.

There may be a few very simple folk who believe that, but that would be pretty rare. What you'll find more than that are people who believe the KJV is the "inspired" English translation and as such is the only true and right one. For what reasons I don't know - I've never bothered to take the time to find out. The only thing I'll say is that just like comparing some passages from, say, the standard Victorian-English translation of The Count of Monte Cristo with a more updated modern English translation, the modern language may be easier to understand at first reading, but a lot of the poetic prose that flows so beautifully in that antiquated English is lost. For the most part, the NIV is just about the most readable modern English translation available; but there are some passages in the KJV that just can't be beat simply for the beauty of the way they sound.